Why the resistance to limiting spellcasters?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,237 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:


If the statblock comes from the GM, then why the heck am I getting so much grief from people over how the gods are stated in my games?

I don't LIKE the freakishly ridiculously powerful 'these are unapproachable entities that still possess personalities that cannot be killed nor can they be surpassed' narrative Paizo provides.

I don't have any problem with how you stat the gods up in your games. It's just not very helpful to use as a reference when talking about Pathfinder in general. When you said your PCs were god-level around 17 it wasn't clear to me (or apparently to others) that you meant your much reduced god level, not the standard PF god level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Denying Rule 0 isn't a thing. Well, unless youI are I am packing your my things to leave, at least at my table and you are now the groups GM.

I replace such GMs.

And I'm sure GMs replace 'such players' more often.
You would be surprised I think how many GMs players will replace when someone else is willing to do it.

Yeah, I would be surprised. Usually it's the GM that is overjoyed when one of their lazy-assed players finally takes over so they can get some play time in. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Denying Rule 0 isn't a thing. Well, unless youI are I am packing your my things to leave, at least at my table and you are now the groups GM.

I replace such GMs.

Seriously though, on what basis would you contest a writeup of a God?

What pathfinder rules would you point to, to say the GM was being 'bad' or 'unfair'?

Surprisingly enough. Rule 0.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
And I personally could not give less of a s**~ about this, the world's most pointless dick measuring contest.

Is there an appropriate Flag option for "This thread has run its course, please put it out of our misery"?


Anzyr wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Denying Rule 0 isn't a thing. Well, unless youI are I am packing your my things to leave, at least at my table and you are now the groups GM.

I replace such GMs.

Seriously though, on what basis would you contest a writeup of a God?

What pathfinder rules would you point to, to say the GM was being 'bad' or 'unfair'?

Surprisingly enough. Rule 0.

Can you explain? Rule 0 says that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules.

In what way would this invalidate or provide a reasonable contest to a God's writeup?


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


If the statblock comes from the GM, then why the heck am I getting so much grief from people over how the gods are stated in my games?

I don't LIKE the freakishly ridiculously powerful 'these are unapproachable entities that still possess personalities that cannot be killed nor can they be surpassed' narrative Paizo provides.

I don't have any problem with how you stat the gods up in your games. It's just not very helpful to use as a reference when talking about Pathfinder in general. When you said your PCs were god-level around 17 it wasn't clear to me (or apparently to others) that you meant your much reduced god level, not the standard PF god level.

Standard PF godhood is a meaningless term. They don't have stats so we do not know how strong they actually are. They don't seem that impressive though from the lore.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Denying Rule 0 isn't a thing. Well, unless youI are I am packing your my things to leave, at least at my table and you are now the groups GM.

I replace such GMs.

Seriously though, on what basis would you contest a writeup of a God?

What pathfinder rules would you point to, to say the GM was being 'bad' or 'unfair'?

Surprisingly enough. Rule 0.

Can you explain? Rule 0 says that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules.

In what way would this invalidate or provide a reasonable contest to a God's writeup?

I suggest you reread rule 0. Because that is not what it says.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
And I personally could not give less of a s**~ about this, the world's most pointless dick measuring contest.
Is there an appropriate Flag option for "This thread has run its course, please put it out of our misery"?

I concur. When one side is unwilling to present evidence meaningful discussion is impossible. I am withdrawing from that part of the discussion.


The Sword wrote:

Are gods and DMs the only ones who can create artifacts?

Kyrt? What's your view on major Artefacts?

I barely do magic items, Artifacts aren't a plot element I fuss with.

If I did though, they would be crafted by Gods using craft skills and would be amazing treasures to lesser beings.


Saithor wrote:

Your assuming Pathfinder even pretends to be realistic. Which it really isn't. And I don't want Saitama, and the examples I've given (Paths of Wars, Dark Souls humanoid enemies) are nowhere near Saitama. I already posted some examples of maneuvers from Paths of War, and none of them are OP compared to a caster's spells of that level. I'm not even arguing that Martials should be able to create demi-planes and so on, just be as good if not better than the wizard at the job they were supposedly designed for.

Also, the Balor takes ten hits to kill from terminal velocity. My question to you is, how many hits can a Fighter kill it in? Assuming no friendly buffs from the Wizard?

Well, if you don't want Saitama, or even the Naruto-level "rearange the countryside with your punches" sort of craziness, then I probably don't disagree with you. I also think that the Fighter could use some buffing, as I mentioned in that post myself. I only disliked how people were jumping on The Sword for wanting to play a level 20 character that didn't have all the crazy powers that were being claimed as part and parcel of that level of play.

As for how many strikes it would take the Fighter... well, I'm not a Fighter expert, so I'd have to defer to those who know that class better than me if you want a really optimized answer, but supposedly there was a Fighter build up-thread that could do it in one hit. I didn't look too closely, so take that for what it's worth. 200HP per round was also thrown out as a benchmark, IIRC. *shrug*

Sundakan wrote:

This entire post falls apart when you realize that terminal velocity is not that significant of a speed or force. It's roughly 122 MPH. A bullet moves much faster. An ARROW achieves almost precisely double that velocity, at the low end.

The arrow is also going to have a higher force output than even a "fall" of the same speed, because the fall is going to spread damage equally over the entire surface area of the impacting and impacted objects, where the arrow compresses all of that force to a single, much smaller point.

Yes? I'm not sure I follow what your objection is. I didn't mean to say that the fall and the arrow had the same speeed, and certainly the surface area aspect gives an arrow or a blade an advantage in penetration and getting to internals for more effective damage to a creature. That advantage doesn't make the point of the post fall apart, it makes it stronger, since the force compression allows for greater damage efficiency on the part of the Fighter.

The fact that terminal velocity is, as you say, "not that significant of a force" is exactly the point. The point is: "if a CR20 Balor can be substantially harmed by 'merely' hitting the ground at 122 MPH, then why would we insist that a Fighter needs to have "devastate the ecology with his weapon strikes" levels of power in order to fight it, or other CR20 foes?

The Fighter needs to be strong, but he doesn't need to be that strong, not by a long shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


If the statblock comes from the GM, then why the heck am I getting so much grief from people over how the gods are stated in my games?

I don't LIKE the freakishly ridiculously powerful 'these are unapproachable entities that still possess personalities that cannot be killed nor can they be surpassed' narrative Paizo provides.

I don't have any problem with how you stat the gods up in your games. It's just not very helpful to use as a reference when talking about Pathfinder in general. When you said your PCs were god-level around 17 it wasn't clear to me (or apparently to others) that you meant your much reduced god level, not the standard PF god level.
Standard PF godhood is a meaningless term. They don't have stats so we do not know how strong they actually are. They don't seem that impressive though from the lore.

They've had such a long time to craft explosive runes though. They're unstoppable. It's only a tenuous peace treaty between them that stops them from ripping all of the planes apart in a flurry of dispel magic and unavoidable force damage.


Anzyr wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Denying Rule 0 isn't a thing. Well, unless youI are I am packing your my things to leave, at least at my table and you are now the groups GM.

I replace such GMs.

Seriously though, on what basis would you contest a writeup of a God?

What pathfinder rules would you point to, to say the GM was being 'bad' or 'unfair'?

Surprisingly enough. Rule 0.

Can you explain? Rule 0 says that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules.

In what way would this invalidate or provide a reasonable contest to a God's writeup?

I suggest you reread rule 0. Because that is not what it says.

Actually it is. It says the GM is the final arbiter. It also says that the players should contribute thoughts when the rules are in doubt. However, since there are no rules that cover god's statblocks, that part is irrelevant to this discussion.

Nonetheless, the 'final arbiter' part still does apply.

That is, unless you can point to a 'rule in doubt' regarding a god's statblock.

Btw, feel free to disengage as you like, but don't even pretend it was because your points weren't being addressed.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Sword wrote:

Are gods and DMs the only ones who can create artifacts?

Kyrt? What's your view on major Artefacts?

I barely do magic items, Artifacts aren't a plot element I fuss with.

If I did though, they would be crafted by Gods

...so, 17th level characters? :D


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


If the statblock comes from the GM, then why the heck am I getting so much grief from people over how the gods are stated in my games?

I don't LIKE the freakishly ridiculously powerful 'these are unapproachable entities that still possess personalities that cannot be killed nor can they be surpassed' narrative Paizo provides.

I don't have any problem with how you stat the gods up in your games. It's just not very helpful to use as a reference when talking about Pathfinder in general. When you said your PCs were god-level around 17 it wasn't clear to me (or apparently to others) that you meant your much reduced god level, not the standard PF god level.

I think we might be having a disconnect here. My level 17+gods have the exact same setting impact as those gods. They're that far above the common man and even the physical world itself.

Where they are tamed down is in their comparison to demigods [level 13-16 characters] and to the greatest of mortal heroes [level 9-12 characters]


_Ozy_ wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Sword wrote:

Are gods and DMs the only ones who can create artifacts?

Kyrt? What's your view on major Artefacts?

I barely do magic items, Artifacts aren't a plot element I fuss with.

If I did though, they would be crafted by Gods

...so, 17th level characters? :D

Now you're getting it :)


JAMRenaissance wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
"village mystic who rides atop a ghost turtle, striking foes with his tiger fork" (the cavalier) is abit too far from monk than I'd prefer.
But I need his stats, because that man is TOTALLY going to show up in my campaign. I don't care how I have to write him in...

Each of these "monks" is going to be level 15, so I'm not sure whether it'd be level appropriate for most games.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Sword wrote:

Are gods and DMs the only ones who can create artifacts?

Kyrt? What's your view on major Artefacts?

I barely do magic items, Artifacts aren't a plot element I fuss with.

If I did though, they would be crafted by Gods

...so, 17th level characters? :D
Now you're getting it :)

Coming back to this topic, I rather like the Coiling Dragon model on artifacts. Ordinary [albeit useful] equipment to the god that made it, but an incredible treasure to lesser beings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

When people talk about 'buffing martials', what exactly are they suggesting?

I see talk about One punch man, suggesting that letting high level fighters effectively fly and do thousands of HP of damage with one hit is about right...

Is there anything high level fighters shouldn't be able to do? It seems like vague suggestions at the moment, how about some more concrete proposals?

Mostly I think there should be a matter of scale. A lot of martials are doing rather similar things in the endgame that they were at the beginning, just with better numbers and fewer penalties along with a few fringe benefits. It seems like a lot of the entirely new things are mostly a function of what kinda gear you can afford. Some, like the Barbarian and the Paladin, feel to me like they're on the right track already, but some more UMF and variety is what I'm looking for. Some things I think about...

-A low-level rogue breaks a bear trap so the party doesn't get snapped carelessly walking around, and can tiptoe around on soft shoes. A mid-level rogue goes on a stroll in the night, scarcely distinguishable from the shadows themselves even when the moon shines brightly, and quickly and quietly sabotages the enemy army's siege engines and slits a few throats before heading back home. A high-level rogue can seem to vanish into thin air if you take your eyes off her for a second, even to senses that can spot invisible creatures, and the power-mad wizard discovers to his cost that she hasn't just disabled the magical defenses of his tower, she's turned them against him!

Basically, 90% of the Arcanist's flavor is that magic can be "hacked." Rather than use this to continue to make overpowered casters that steal the sorcerer's nice things, I think it'd be neat if rogues extend their power to break magical traps into one that can "hack" magical traps, letting you turn the dungeon itself against its occupants. And while magic can initially spend spell slots to do things better than the rogue's skills can in the early-mid game, in the mid-late game the rogue has learned some things about hiding that are BETTER than turning invisible because she had to learn them the hard way. Skill Unlocks sorta start in this direction but I feel they played it much too safe, and it's irksome that Lurker In Darkness is still a 3rd party only thing despite giving Stealth a much-needed advantage over magical concealment.

-I personally like for the super-jump to come into play at higher levels as turning demons into bacon mist becomes a rather trivial pursuit for martials. I have not observed it as negative to play enjoyment in any way to allow the party's brawler at high levels to jump up and grapple the flying sorcerer trying to strafe the party and drag him back to the ground with a good acrobatics check. Dude killed a triceratops with a single punch, I'm pretty sure he's strong enough to make a flying leap like that. I dunno, I just feel like it's...silly? If a dude can rip an iron portcullis out of its place and chuck it over his shoulder with his strength but still has trouble making a jump that takes him ten feet off the ground.

-One major thing that's kinda bugged me is that there's no Master Sword for your Link-type characters. A Magus, a magic-user, can get a 100% unique magical sword that only he can use, but a martial who lives and dies by his sword never gets a unique sword? No matter how good your fighter is, a level 1 warrior could pick up and use his sword. A GM can give the party's martial a unique artifact weapon or whatever if they feel like it, but the Magus (and the Arcanist, for reasons I still do not understand) can have "unique magical sword that is bound to me alone" as a class feature but not the guy meant to be the ultimate weapon-master.

-I'd like it if magic didn't take all modes of movement for granted while the normal blokes just have to hoof it everywhere on foot. It just makes sense to me that fighters and rogues, classes that are sold on their remarkable physical accomplishments rather than flashy magic stuff would naturally gain climb and swim speeds at mid-level. They can't break the rules of gravity like Spider Climb does, but they can get around just fine without needing potions, spell slots, or magic items when it comes to climbing and swimming. This is particularly relevant to the fighter, who cannot spare much in the way of skill ranks on these things, but also to the rogue, who gains movement speeds even from spending precious skill unlocks on those two skills at a very slow, unexciting rate.

-I'd like some stuff to break up the monotony of the full attack, which I feel dovetails nicely with my desire for martials to be able to mess something up while they're fighting it in a way that isn't a moderate and mechanically irrelevant inconvenience until it dies. While I hate to bring in anime, I feel Attack On Titan gives a good example when Levi, a skilled hunter, goes up against a titan, who is ten times his size and capable of crushing a grown man into chunky salsa with a single blow. Levi's attacks aren't focused on simply doing a lot of damage; he shreds up the monster's arm with his initial move, before moving on to go for the eyes to blind it, hamstring it so it can't run away, and then break its jaw so it can't bite or swallow the person it's holding in its mouth. Combat maneuvers again attempt to give you something in the way of martial debuffing but I don't think they go far enough in being able to use your weapons not just to kill but cripple the opposition. Being able to do damage and debuff with your attack action as an alternative to the full attack for maximum damage would pep things up, I'd say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trying to get back on track in terms of buffing the fighter and avoiding the problem of taking on gods, I suggested Path of War as an answer to the OP a few times. Do the non-supernatural disciplines at least provide a buff to martials that does not break the realism scale?


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
-One major thing that's kinda bugged me is that there's no Master Sword for your Link-type characters. A Magus, a magic-user, can get a 100% unique magical sword that only he can use, but a martial who lives and dies by his sword never gets a unique sword? No matter how good your fighter is, a level 1 warrior could pick up and use his sword. A GM can give the party's martial a unique artifact weapon or whatever if they feel like it, but the Magus (and the Arcanist, for reasons I still do not understand) can have "unique magical sword that is bound to me alone" as a class feature but not the guy meant to be the ultimate weapon-master.

A level 1 fighter might pick up the master blade of a level 20 legend.. but he certainly isn't going to hang on to it. Part of that strength of the weapon being the strength of the wielder thing.


Saithor wrote:
Trying to get back on track in terms of buffing the fighter and avoiding the problem of taking on gods, I suggested Path of War as an answer to the OP a few times. Do the non-supernatural disciplines at least provide a buff to martials that does not break the realism scale?

People don't like Path of War because, while there are some really cool, flavorful abilities squirreled away, the vast majority of abilities are "+a crapton of damage" which is something martials didn't really need in the first place. You can't really mix initiators with normal martials, and it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind. While it's a system I like a lot, its far from an elegant solution that will work for most people.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
-One major thing that's kinda bugged me is that there's no Master Sword for your Link-type characters. A Magus, a magic-user, can get a 100% unique magical sword that only he can use, but a martial who lives and dies by his sword never gets a unique sword? No matter how good your fighter is, a level 1 warrior could pick up and use his sword. A GM can give the party's martial a unique artifact weapon or whatever if they feel like it, but the Magus (and the Arcanist, for reasons I still do not understand) can have "unique magical sword that is bound to me alone" as a class feature but not the guy meant to be the ultimate weapon-master.
A level 1 fighter might pick up the master blade of a level 20 legend.. but he certainly isn't going to hang on to it. Part of that strength of the weapon being the strength of the wielder thing.

True there, but I agree with Blackwaltzomega, Fighter's really should be able to at least have a way to make unique and cool weapons for themselves. Even if it's just a feature that means at a certain level, you can go on a quest for awesome gear.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind.

Can you elaborate on this, and explain how it's any different from 'balancing encounters with spells in mind'?

Full disclosure, I don't 'balance encounters' at all, aside from using CR as a rough guideline.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Trying to get back on track in terms of buffing the fighter and avoiding the problem of taking on gods, I suggested Path of War as an answer to the OP a few times. Do the non-supernatural disciplines at least provide a buff to martials that does not break the realism scale?
People don't like Path of War because, while there are some really cool, flavorful abilities squirreled away, the vast majority of abilities are "+a crapton of damage" which is something martials didn't really need in the first place. You can't really mix initiators with normal martials, and it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind. While it's a system I like a lot, its far from an elegant solution that will work for most people.

True, but beyond the damage buffs, it does make combat maneuvers, tanking, and so on actually viable. But as far as balancing encounters for them, most of the time they act as single-target spells.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind.

Can you elaborate on this, and explain how it's any different from 'balancing encounters with spells in mind'?

Full disclosure, I don't 'balance encounters' at all, aside from using CR as a rough guideline.

I don't really think it's that different from balancing for spells, except in the case of the maneuvers it's actually a shorter list to remember. They regen faster then spells, but are mostly single-target.


Saithor wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
-One major thing that's kinda bugged me is that there's no Master Sword for your Link-type characters. A Magus, a magic-user, can get a 100% unique magical sword that only he can use, but a martial who lives and dies by his sword never gets a unique sword? No matter how good your fighter is, a level 1 warrior could pick up and use his sword. A GM can give the party's martial a unique artifact weapon or whatever if they feel like it, but the Magus (and the Arcanist, for reasons I still do not understand) can have "unique magical sword that is bound to me alone" as a class feature but not the guy meant to be the ultimate weapon-master.
A level 1 fighter might pick up the master blade of a level 20 legend.. but he certainly isn't going to hang on to it. Part of that strength of the weapon being the strength of the wielder thing.

True there, but I agree with Blackwaltzomega, Fighter's really should be able to at least have a way to make unique and cool weapons for themselves. Even if it's just a feature that means at a certain level, you can go on a quest for awesome gear.

They can... take ranks in Craft Weapon and/or Armor, Master Craftsman and the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat, and they are good to go. If they aren't the proverbial dumb fighter, they'll have the ranks they need. Rewards they get for questing can be unique rewards. Gaining things that way ain't any different than having a wizard discover and obtain an ancient (or a rival's) spellbook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saithor wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:
I think Pathfinder has plenty of mechanics that I'd say would work thematically for the Fighter. Cavalier Orders, Ki Pool Abilities, Combat Stamina, Martial Flexibility, Judgments, Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage... there's a lot that can be mined here.
Unfortunately at the cost of class identity. Which is a whole other can of worms on it's own.

I'd argue the problem with Fighters is they don't HAVE any identity. every time someone comes up with an interesting schtick for a fighty-type, it gets peeled off into a new class so that the Fighter can maintain its pristine blandness.

(100 new messages in a few hours? Gah.)


You want to see fighters come into their own?

Dump mithral. Jettison the celestial armors. Fighters become the one class that can move full speed in heavy armor without the use of short-lived spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kryt-ryder wrote:
Johnnycat wrote:
it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind.

Can you elaborate on this, and explain how it's any different from 'balancing encounters with spells in mind'?

Full disclosure, I don't 'balance encounters' at all, aside from using CR as a rough guideline.

Nor do I.

Pathfinder is a game that encourages players to approach combat in what is, ultimately, a very narrow scope. Most martial characters are going to be relying on their full-attacks to get their damage in. Consequently, they don't move around a lot (I'm sure this isn't news to anyone).

Path of War, however, opens up what is essentially an entirely new action economy for initiators. Any giving discipline has at least a handful of maneuvers that allow a character to move and follow up with a big attack in the first round of combat, even at early levels.

So this ends up coming into conflict with how Pathfinder structures most of their encounters or bestiary creatures, where they're not really able to keep up with a character who can drop a strike to close into melee first round, boost to ensure the kill, and have a counter in their back pocket for anything unexpected.

To a lesser extent, it's the same situation that arose with Swashbuckler's parry - an active defense that can outright deny attacks is so unusual within the Pathfinder system that the dev team errata'd all access to it away so that only the Swashbuckler and for some reason the Magus would have it. Similar to why Crane Style sucks now.

It's not all that different from balancing magic, I suppose, but it does add a second thing that GMs will need to account for. 3pp already gets a bad rap and, in my experience at least, most people don't want to put in the effort to learn a totally new system (and Path of War is definitely something that needs to be learned).


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Saithor wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:
I think Pathfinder has plenty of mechanics that I'd say would work thematically for the Fighter. Cavalier Orders, Ki Pool Abilities, Combat Stamina, Martial Flexibility, Judgments, Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage... there's a lot that can be mined here.
Unfortunately at the cost of class identity. Which is a whole other can of worms on it's own.

I'd argue the problem with Fighters is they don't HAVE any identity. every time someone comes up with an interesting schtick for a fighty-type, it gets peeled off into a new class so that the Fighter can maintain its pristine blandness.

(100 new messages in a few hours? Gah.)

Perhaps that is what we should do. Embrace the blandness and build off of it.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Saithor wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:
I think Pathfinder has plenty of mechanics that I'd say would work thematically for the Fighter. Cavalier Orders, Ki Pool Abilities, Combat Stamina, Martial Flexibility, Judgments, Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage... there's a lot that can be mined here.
Unfortunately at the cost of class identity. Which is a whole other can of worms on it's own.

I'd argue the problem with Fighters is they don't HAVE any identity. every time someone comes up with an interesting schtick for a fighty-type, it gets peeled off into a new class so that the Fighter can maintain its pristine blandness.

(100 new messages in a few hours? Gah.)

Tell me about it. Take a two hour break, over 150.

Class identity has been spread around like a single piece of butter on a gym floor. My reason for not going for more is because there's enough of it already. Archetypes, Hybrid classes, the Vigilante, three different full casters who are practically the same except minor variation.

Out of all of them, the only one's I'd really keep are the Hybrids with actual new mechanics, and the archetypes, which have provided unique versions of classes in the past.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
-One major thing that's kinda bugged me is that there's no Master Sword for your Link-type characters. A Magus, a magic-user, can get a 100% unique magical sword that only he can use, but a martial who lives and dies by his sword never gets a unique sword? No matter how good your fighter is, a level 1 warrior could pick up and use his sword. A GM can give the party's martial a unique artifact weapon or whatever if they feel like it, but the Magus (and the Arcanist, for reasons I still do not understand) can have "unique magical sword that is bound to me alone" as a class feature but not the guy meant to be the ultimate weapon-master.
A level 1 fighter might pick up the master blade of a level 20 legend.. but he certainly isn't going to hang on to it. Part of that strength of the weapon being the strength of the wielder thing.

True there, but I agree with Blackwaltzomega, Fighter's really should be able to at least have a way to make unique and cool weapons for themselves. Even if it's just a feature that means at a certain level, you can go on a quest for awesome gear.

They can... take ranks in Craft Weapon and/or Armor, Master Craftsman and the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat, and they are good to go. If they aren't the proverbial dumb fighter, they'll have the ranks they need. Rewards they get for questing can be unique rewards. Gaining things that way ain't any different than having a wizard discover and obtain an ancient (or a rival's) spellbook.

Not exactly the answer to the Magus, but good enough. Although it's even more feats dumped on the fighter at this point.


Quote:
True, but beyond the damage buffs, it does make combat maneuvers, tanking, and so on actually viable. But as far as balancing encounters for them, most of the time they act as single-target spells.

Indeed, but on the other hand if you let a party of full initiators into an AP without touching the encounters at all, I'm fairly confident they will absolutely steamroll every combat.

In short, for better or worse, the system assumes martials suck, so if you make them not suck then you need to change a few things with encounter design. That's all I'm getting at.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

You want to see fighters come into their own?

Dump mithral. Jettison the celestial armors. Fighters become the one class that can move full speed in heavy armor without the use of short-lived spells.

Yeah, it would be nice, if tanking was actually a viable strategy. Moving full speed in heavy armor is nice, but it's nowhere near Rage Powers+Rage, Sneak Attack+Rogue Talents, Limited casting+Favored Enemy+Animal Companion, Self-heal+Free Magic Weapon+Spellcasting+Aura of Righteoussness+Smite Evil.

Even with extra feats, most of the time they're sunk into really long chains and useless feat taxes. Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse, Improved Maneuver X, etc., etc.

Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quote:
True, but beyond the damage buffs, it does make combat maneuvers, tanking, and so on actually viable. But as far as balancing encounters for them, most of the time they act as single-target spells.

Indeed, but on the other hand if you let a party of full initiators into an AP without touching the encounters at all, I'm fairly confident they will absolutely steamroll every combat.

In short, for better or worse, the system assumes martials suck, so if you make them not suck then you need to change a few things with encounter design. That's all I'm getting at.

Yeah, I completely agree. And I love how it's just built into the system as well.


Saithor wrote:
Not exactly the answer to the Magus, but good enough. Although it's even more feats dumped on the fighter at this point.

Every choice has it's price. If the fighter wants to be the one who makes his own magic armor and weapons, that's the price that needs to be paid.

Others may decide that that Fate will simply grant them what they are destined to and not make those choices. Every concept involves spending choices like this to make it work.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Not exactly the answer to the Magus, but good enough. Although it's even more feats dumped on the fighter at this point.

Every choice has it's price. If the fighter wants to be the one who makes his own magic armor and weapons, that's the price that needs to be paid.

Others may decide that that Fate will simply grant them what they are destined to and not make those choices. Every concept involves spending choices like this to make it work.

Wouldn't mind so much, it's just there are a lot of feat taxes already in combat. And that some of the concepts actually did work. I still have no idea why every Combat Maneuver in existence has to provoke an AoO.


Saithor wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Not exactly the answer to the Magus, but good enough. Although it's even more feats dumped on the fighter at this point.

Every choice has it's price. If the fighter wants to be the one who makes his own magic armor and weapons, that's the price that needs to be paid.

Others may decide that that Fate will simply grant them what they are destined to and not make those choices. Every concept involves spending choices like this to make it work.

Wouldn't mind so much, it's just there are a lot of feat taxes already in combat. And that some of the concepts actually did work. I still have no idea why every Combat Maneuver in existence has to provoke an AoO.

Because that's the difference between flailing around and training in your martial arts. It's part of the reason that fighters get so many combat feats... they can get better at a bunch of things or godly at fewer. The master of many combat maneuvers has a lot of options to do battlefield control and repositioning.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

You want to see fighters come into their own?

Dump mithral. Jettison the celestial armors. Fighters become the one class that can move full speed in heavy armor without the use of short-lived spells.

Longstrider is 1 hr/level.

Boots of striding and springing are constant effect

Clerics of travel domain get both longstrider and a permanent +10 move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Trying to get back on track in terms of buffing the fighter and avoiding the problem of taking on gods, I suggested Path of War as an answer to the OP a few times. Do the non-supernatural disciplines at least provide a buff to martials that does not break the realism scale?
People don't like Path of War because, while there are some really cool, flavorful abilities squirreled away, the vast majority of abilities are "+a crapton of damage" which is something martials didn't really need in the first place.

Not strictly true. While some Disiplines are primarily damage oriented (Broken Blade and Primal Fury most conspicuously, and both are in the process of being reworked to do less OMGWTF damage and get cooler stuff instead). Most Disiplines fall into one of a few categories:

Combat Maneuver Focused: Solar Wind, Tempest Gale

Debuff Focused: Cursed Razor, Shattered Mirror, Sleeping Goddess, Black Seraph, Steel Serpent, Eternal Guardian

Buff Focused: Sleeping Goddess, Silver Crane, Shattered Mirror, Golden lion

Tank Focused: Eternal Guardian, Iron Tortoise, Riven Hourglas

Niche Build Focused: Mithral Current (Iaijutsu and speed-blitz builds), Piercing Thunder (Polearm masters and dragoons), Veiled Moon (Stealth/scout/mobility specialists), Elemental Flux (elemental damage based martial characters)

Johnnycat93 wrote:
You can't really mix initiators with normal martials, and it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind. While it's a system I like a lot, its far from an elegant solution that will work for most people.

This I SORT OF agree with. Some martials mix just fine (Paladin and Ranger). The easy fix for the rest is to give them Maneuver progression as the Warder or Warlord (their choice).

Johnnycat93 wrote:
Quote:
True, but beyond the damage buffs, it does make combat maneuvers, tanking, and so on actually viable. But as far as balancing encounters for them, most of the time they act as single-target spells.

Indeed, but on the other hand if you let a party of full initiators into an AP without touching the encounters at all, I'm fairly confident they will absolutely steamroll every combat.

In short, for better or worse, the system assumes martials suck, so if you make them not suck then you need to change a few things with encounter design. That's all I'm getting at.

No more than a party of 6 level casters and much less than a well built party of full casters though.

APs don't handle anything beyond slight variations of Fighter-Rogue-Wizard-Cleric very well.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

You want to see fighters come into their own?

Dump mithral. Jettison the celestial armors. Fighters become the one class that can move full speed in heavy armor without the use of short-lived spells.

Longstrider is 1 hr/level.

Boots of striding and springing are constant effect

Clerics of travel domain get both longstrider and a permanent +10 move.

Again, that's magic. Paladins and Clerics who don't have the travel domain don't get that benie. And the Fighter has the option of putting on more interesting boots.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

You want to see fighters come into their own?

Dump mithral. Jettison the celestial armors. Fighters become the one class that can move full speed in heavy armor without the use of short-lived spells.

Longstrider is 1 hr/level.

Boots of striding and springing are constant effect

Clerics of travel domain get both longstrider and a permanent +10 move.

Again, that's magic. Paladins and Clerics who don't have the travel domain don't get that benie. And the Fighter has the option of putting on more interesting boots.

Well yeah, but it's not 'short lived spells'. Anyways, with flight coming online midlevels, well before fighters get full move in heavy armor, I'm not sure the advantage would be as great as you think.

Fighters get advantage from mithral in the early game as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the Fighter is the only one of the two classes that get Heavy Armor proficiency as part of their starter get that gets to move at full speed in Heavy armor.

And you think THAT'S what's going to fix the problems with the class?

Yeah, okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Not exactly the answer to the Magus, but good enough. Although it's even more feats dumped on the fighter at this point.

Every choice has it's price. If the fighter wants to be the one who makes his own magic armor and weapons, that's the price that needs to be paid.

Others may decide that that Fate will simply grant them what they are destined to and not make those choices. Every concept involves spending choices like this to make it work.

Wouldn't mind so much, it's just there are a lot of feat taxes already in combat. And that some of the concepts actually did work. I still have no idea why every Combat Maneuver in existence has to provoke an AoO.
Because that's the difference between flailing around and training in your martial arts. It's part of the reason that fighters get so many combat feats... they can get better at a bunch of things or godly at fewer. The master of many combat maneuvers has a lot of options to do battlefield control and repositioning.

You might as well argue that attacking does the same thing however. It is not that fundamentally different, and some of these feats aren't fantastic martial arts movements. Dirty Trick is literally kicking/throwing sand in someone's eyes, but somehow exposes you more than swinging a sword? Not to mention any trained sword student worth their salt should know how to disarm their opponent. Or how aiming at their equipment instead f them somehow opens you up more.

You don't take these feats to be good at the maneuver, you take them to make the maneuver worth using as a possible alternative to the sword. Which even then you have to dedicate most of the build to be decent at it versus CMD. With all of that, often it's just better to only use attacks. Which most people do in the games I play. The only time I've ever seen Trip Masters/Sudnerers/Dirty Tricksters is when 3rd party is allowed.

As for AP's, I've played two-three. Never again, as our DM hated being railroaded by the game, and we were breezing through everything.


Sundakan wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Saithor wrote:
Trying to get back on track in terms of buffing the fighter and avoiding the problem of taking on gods, I suggested Path of War as an answer to the OP a few times. Do the non-supernatural disciplines at least provide a buff to martials that does not break the realism scale?
People don't like Path of War because, while there are some really cool, flavorful abilities squirreled away, the vast majority of abilities are "+a crapton of damage" which is something martials didn't really need in the first place.

Not strictly true. While some Disiplines are primarily damage oriented (Broken Blade and Primal Fury most conspicuously, and both are in the process of being reworked to do less OMGWTF damage and get cooler stuff instead). Most Disiplines fall into one of a few categories:

Combat Maneuver Focused: Solar Wind, Tempest Gale

Debuff Focused: Cursed Razor, Shattered Mirror, Sleeping Goddess, Black Seraph, Steel Serpent, Eternal Guardian

Buff Focused: Sleeping Goddess, Silver Crane, Shattered Mirror, Golden lion

Tank Focused: Eternal Guardian, Iron Tortoise, Riven Hourglas

Niche Build Focused: Mithral Current (Iaijutsu and speed-blitz builds), Piercing Thunder (Polearm masters and dragoons), Veiled Moon (Stealth/scout/mobility specialists), Elemental Flux (elemental damage based martial characters)

I suppose I should correct myself. No, not every discipline is Primal Fury or Broken Blade that deals primarily with direct damage. However, every discipline does boost damage with at least a few of their maneuvers. Black Seraph has Strength of Hell, Riven Hourglass has Minutehand, Mithral Current has the various sword-beam attacks, Elemental Flux pumps out a lot of energy damage dice, so on so forth.

Compared to a Fighter's Weapon Training or a Ranger's Favored Enemy, I don't think it's much of stretch to say that Path of War offers major damage boosts no matter what you're building.

Quote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
You can't really mix initiators with normal martials, and it takes an experienced GM to balance encounters with maneuvers in mind. While it's a system I like a lot, its far from an elegant solution that will work for most people.
This I SORT OF agree with. Some martials mix just fine (Paladin and Ranger). The easy fix for the rest is to give them Maneuver progression as the Warder or Warlord (their choice).

Personally, if I'm feeling lazy I'll limit Path of War to Martial Training and Archetype access only. Beyond that I usually want to build my own encounters.

Quote:

No more than a party of 6 level casters and much less than a well built party of full casters though.

APs don't handle anything beyond slight variations of Fighter-Rogue-Wizard-Cleric very well.

Right, sure, which is why I originally said that people using Path of War will probably want to reexamine encounter design before the game starts.


Johnnycat93 wrote:


I suppose I should correct myself. No, not every discipline is Primal Fury or Broken Blade that deals primarily with direct damage. However, every discipline does boost damage with at least a few of their maneuvers. Black Seraph has Strength of Hell, Riven Hourglass has Minutehand, Mithral Current has the various sword-beam attacks, Elemental Flux pumps out a lot of energy damage dice, so on so forth.

Compared to a Fighter's Weapon Training or a Ranger's Favored Enemy, I don't think it's much of stretch to say that Path of War offers major damage boosts no matter what you're building.

Major, yes, though few actually outdo the combined attack and damage bonuses, since Maneuvers that give attack bonuses are pretty rare.

By the system's math, each point of attack is worth 3 damage, roughly speaking.

A Maneuver that takes your standard to give an extra 2d6 (average 7 damage) but no attack bonus is not far off this math. A Ranger against a Favored Enemy at 1st level has +2 attack and damage, or roughly +8 damage worth of combined bonuses.

The higher level maneuvers are competing with full attacks, and mathematically fare even worse as far as raw damage is concerned.

Outside of Primal Fury and Broken Blade, the only two really gonzo damage Boosts I can think of are Night's Knife from Steel Serpent (add your Heal ranks to all damage for a round) and Aurora Break from Solar Wind (+8d6 fire damage to every attack...on an archery focused character).

Those are more balanced by opportunity cost (of ranks in an almost entirely useless skill) and a lot of enemies heavily resisting or being immune at the level you get it (15th) respectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

The higher level maneuvers are competing with full attacks, and mathematically fare even worse as far as raw damage is concerned.

Part of the reason I love it so much. I'm currently making a Warder focused on Piercing Thunder, and now I actually have a reason to Charge instead of just doing Full Attack and hoping that my opponent will stay in place.

That's the biggest thing POW added IMO, which was variety. Too often the Fighter style character's main thing has been get up in the face and full attack repeatedly, but POW actually adds incentive for attacks strategies beyond that.


Sundakan wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:


I suppose I should correct myself. No, not every discipline is Primal Fury or Broken Blade that deals primarily with direct damage. However, every discipline does boost damage with at least a few of their maneuvers. Black Seraph has Strength of Hell, Riven Hourglass has Minutehand, Mithral Current has the various sword-beam attacks, Elemental Flux pumps out a lot of energy damage dice, so on so forth.

Compared to a Fighter's Weapon Training or a Ranger's Favored Enemy, I don't think it's much of stretch to say that Path of War offers major damage boosts no matter what you're building.

Major, yes, though few actually outdo the combined attack and damage bonuses, since Maneuvers that give attack bonuses are pretty rare.

By the system's math, each point of attack is worth 3 damage, roughly speaking.

A Maneuver that takes your standard to give an extra 2d6 (average 7 damage) but no attack bonus is not far off this math. A Ranger against a Favored Enemy at 1st level has +2 attack and damage, or roughly +8 damage worth of combined bonuses.

The higher level maneuvers are competing with full attacks, and mathematically fare even worse as far as raw damage is concerned.

Outside of Primal Fury and Broken Blade, the only two really gonzo damage Boosts I can think of are Night's Knife from Steel Serpent (add your Heal ranks to all damage for a round) and Aurora Break from Solar Wind (+8d6 fire damage to every attack...on an archery focused character).

Those are more balanced by opportunity cost (of ranks in an almost entirely useless skill) and a lot of enemies heavily resisting or being immune at the level you get it (15th) respectively.

I think the breaking point is when an Initiator starts dropping boosts and strikes in the same round. They'll be going through maneuvers a lot faster, but that's when the really big damage starts coming out. That's also putting aside stuff like Warlord's Gambit that add decent bonus to their d20 rolls, I don't thinks relevant.

What I like about Path of War is that everything has decent damage boosters, because it lessens the need to optimize. Whatever character concept that would normally be stupid only needs a few core maneuvers to suddenly be very functional. Maybe I want to do something like run a shield basher. All I need to do is grab a couple of Iron Tortoise maneuvers and I can go out and defend the crap out of some people, even if I squander a bunch of my feats or whatever.


"Actually, DR only blocks damage from attacks .

Falling isn't the ground attacking you.

So DR Doesn't help."

That clearly seems to be an oversight. It's no different than a rock falling on you and saying "the rock isn't attacking you, so no DR."


Sauce987654321 wrote:

"Actually, DR only blocks damage from attacks .

Falling isn't the ground attacking you.

So DR Doesn't help."

That clearly seems to be an oversight. It's no different than a rock falling on you and saying "the rock isn't attacking you, so no DR."

Not an oversight.

It's also why DR doesn't help against magic, environment damage, or poison.


HWalsh wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:

"Actually, DR only blocks damage from attacks .

Falling isn't the ground attacking you.

So DR Doesn't help."

That clearly seems to be an oversight. It's no different than a rock falling on you and saying "the rock isn't attacking you, so no DR."

Not an oversight.

It's also why DR doesn't help against magic, environment damage, or poison.

Magic and poison are entirely different types of damage, and even magic has the excuse of being "magic." Falling is entirely physical non magical damage, so it's at best a non sensical rules decision.

Does environmental damage specifically call out ignoring damage reduction?


Skip a day and 290 new posts.
Jesus.

I am more interested in what SoM can provide than what PoW provided.
PoW has noble intentions, but how much it messes up the default game makes playing with it completely another ruleset completely.

And that is not really intuitive solution.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
-One major thing that's kinda bugged me is that there's no Master Sword for your Link-type characters. A Magus, a magic-user, can get a 100% unique magical sword that only he can use, but a martial who lives and dies by his sword never gets a unique sword? No matter how good your fighter is, a level 1 warrior could pick up and use his sword. A GM can give the party's martial a unique artifact weapon or whatever if they feel like it, but the Magus (and the Arcanist, for reasons I still do not understand) can have "unique magical sword that is bound to me alone" as a class feature but not the guy meant to be the ultimate weapon-master.

I have been thinking about that alot since getting into a discussion in another thread (or maybe this one, I dunno, this has gone on a while) about "Warrior Spirit". I had an issue with it (and would have with the Item Mastery feats had I known about them at that time) in that they were basically giving Fighters Magic.

With that said, if we look at those abilities less as "powers of the player" and more "narrative device that gives the Fighter some direct control", a combination of these two things seem likethey'd fit what you're saying. Just to cover my own personal idiosyncracies about allowing the fighter to not have any direct magical abilities, toss in a touch of "some narrative story must be given for the item" and "these powers are chosen once and specific to the item, while replacing the item is done in a manner to replacing a bonded item".

At this point, I really believe they've given us rules for everything; we just have to mix and match them for the desired effects.


JAMRenaissance wrote:


With that said, if we look at those abilities less as "powers of the player" and more "narrative device that gives the Fighter some direct control", a combination of these two things seem like they'd fit what you're saying.

That's a bad mix -- it breaks both the narrativist and the simulationist view of gaming. You have to do work to get both of those groups to dislike the same idea.

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,237 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why the resistance to limiting spellcasters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.